After Jan. 16, when Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won a stunning election victory, pundits and officials in Washington and some elsewhere expressed apprehension that Tsai would adopt the policies of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) — the only other DPP president.
That would transform the Taiwan Strait back into the world’s No. 1 flashpoint (place where a conflict is likely to break out with participants, meaning the US and China, using weapons of mass destruction). Some even predict a war, not just a conflict.
However, Tsai is not a Chen clone or Chen with a different name. The two are very different people.
Chen was from a poor family. He was schooled in local politics. His education was in Taiwan. He did not speak a foreign language. He was a populist. He was a magnetic speaker and that was his tool to win votes.
Chen won election to the presidency in 2000 by default. It is probably more accurate to say the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) split and lost the election than to argue that Chen won. In any case, the DPP did not win a majority in the legislature and the KMT could, and did, stymie Chen and block his agenda.
Chen’s option was to rally his base — the Fukien Taiwanese who constitute 65 percent of the population. Chen alienated the other three ethnic groups, the Hakka, Mainlanders and Aborigines, by regarding them almost as enemies (They had voted for the KMT).
He thought this was the only way he could govern, but employing a divide-and-conquer strategy and exploiting ethnic ill will had its dark side.
He also calculated that by provoking China and labeling it an enemy he could nurture local nationalism and a Taiwan identity and keep supporters on his side. However, this made the Taiwan Strait a danger zone and upset the US, which was at war with terrorism, and turned Washington against Chen.
Finally, Chen reckoned that the KMT would mend its disunity and he could rule and win re-election only if he had more money (and the KMT was a rich party). He also believed the dictum promoted by some US politicians that the richest candidate wins 90 percent of the time. So he resorted to corrupt practices in the extreme.
When Chen left office he was convicted of various offenses, with friends, relatives and foreign nations, including the US, providing evidence against him. He besmirched his own name and that of his party and Taiwan.
Tsai was born into a rich family. She is Hakka — not the same ethnic group as Chen. She prefers speaking Mandarin to Taiwanese. She earned graduate degrees from outstanding academic institutions in English-speaking nations (the US and the UK). Her government jobs were not in local politics, but rather dealing with external relations and economic issues.
She won acclaim in Taiwan’s politics and support from voters with rational policies and strategies to fix the DPP, restore respect for the party and win elections, together with hard work and persistence. She did not mesmerize crowds with her good oratory; she has admitted that her KMT opponents were better speakers and more talented in debate.
Some of her opponents accused her of corruption, but nothing has stuck. No one talks of her selling political jobs or keeping bank accounts abroad. The conclusion is that she is clean.
Tsai won election to the presidency with an unqualified victory. She attained more votes than two other candidates combined, garnering a record number of votes since Taiwan adopted a direct system for electing its presidents. She won considerable votes from Taiwan’s minority groups. She has a clear mandate to govern.
One might say she won partly because the KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) did not do a good job and became unpopular. Also populism helped her. That is true. However, Tsai arguably won more by espousing ideas that would fix Taiwan’s problems and a sound election strategy.
She also had coattails. The DPP won a resounding victory in the legislature. This will ensure her relatively smooth governing. It will help Tsai advance reforms, which was part of her agenda, and which are sorely needed.
Tsai won Taiwan’s highest office not by manufacturing an enemy and promoting local nationalism as Chen did. Her policy of maintaining the “status quo” in cross-strait relations was a central tenet of her campaign.
She likewise realized that a cordial relationship with the US, or at least Washington’s neutrality in the election campaign, was essential. She convinced top officials in the US that she did not want to provoke China or take the US for granted and would not become another Chen that the US Department of State still despises.
Tsai still faces serious challenges. One is her party base. Many prefer Taiwan’s independence to the “status quo” and think their election win justifies that. They also believe China will come around. Both ideas are dangerous.
Tsai also faces a faltering economy and a less than favorable global marketplace. She has to build good relations with Taiwan’s business leaders and China. Both are, to some degree, unfriendly.
Tsai faces formidable problems. However, she is unlikely to adopt a previous president’s modus operandi to solve them.
John Copper is the Stanley J Buckman Distinguished Professor (emeritus) of International Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS